502 Phil. 143
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered in the above-entitled case:On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) promulgated its Decision dated April 27, 2000 reversing the Labor Arbiter's Decision and dismissing respondents' complaint.SO ORDERED."
- Declaring Shie Jie Corporation/Seastar Ex-Im Corporation, Michael Yang and Sammy Yang to have committed unfair labor practice against the complainants for violating the latter's constitutional rights to self-organization;
- Declaring that complainants Ernesto Etrata, Nida Toribio, Sorraya Amping, Yolanda Lorenzo, Vivian Mendoza, Merylene delos Reyes, Manuel Francisco, Wilfredo Toribio, Yasher Taning and Arnold Francisco were illegally dismissed by the respondents;
- Ordering Shie Jie Corporation and/or Seastar Ex-Im Corporation to jointly and severally pay the complainants the claims and awards listed and specified in Annex `A' forming an integral part hereof, in the total amount of Eight Hundred Forty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty & 62/100 Pesos (P843,960.62), Philippine currency; and
- Dismissing the claims for rest day pay and unpaid waiting time, for lack of merit.
"In resolving this issue we find for the petitioners.On December 21, 2001, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied by the Appellate Court in a Resolution dated April 9, 2002.
When there is no showing of a clear valid and legal cause for the termination of employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal and the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause. This burden of proof appropriately lies on the shoulders of the employers and not on the employee because a worker's job has some of the characteristics of property rights and is therefore within the constitutional mantle of protection. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws (Quebec, Sr. vs. NLRC, 301 SCRA 627, 633-634).
Aporopos thereto, Art. 277, par. (b) of the Labor Code mandates in explicit terms that the burden of proving the validity of the termination of employment rests on the employer. Failure to discharge this evidential burden would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified, and, therefore, illegal (Ibid.).
In this regard, the private respondents failed.
To our mind, the alleged resignation of the said six petitioners is incredible. To constitute a resignation, it must be unconditional and with the intent to operate as such. There must be an intention to relinquish a portion of the term of office accompanied by an act of relinquishment (Azcor Manufacturing, Inc. vs. NLRC, 303 SCRA 26, 33). In the instant case, the questioned resignation letters were dated July 27, 1998. If indeed they resigned on the said date then how come 17 days later or on August 13, 1998 they filed their complaints against the private respondents? The same is therefore illogical and contrary to human experience. The filing of the complaints and thereafter their active pursuance of their cases for illegal dismissal negate any intention on their part to relinquish their job with private respondent Shie Jie Corporation/Seastar Corporation.
The fact that the resignation letters were fully written by the six petitioners themselves (Annex `A' to Comment in Respondents' Position Paper, Id. at p. 93) is of no moment. Having introduced those resignation letters in evidence, it was incumbent upon the private respondents to prove clearly and convincingly their genuineness and due execution (Azcor Manufacturing, Inc. vs. NLRC, 303 SCRA 26, 34). (Emphasis ours). This, they failed to do. The fact that the subject resignation letters were all exactly worded lead us to conclude that indeed the said petitioners merely copied the same and that they only accomplished said letters for fear that they would not be regularized in their jobs.x x x x x x
Regarding the four petitioners who were dismissed for abandonment, we rule that they were likewise illegally dismissed.x x x x x x
In the instant case, the intent to abandon was not convincingly shown. It is unlikely that the said petitioners abandoned their jobs considering that they have worked with the private respondent company for 4-6 years with the exception of petitioner Arnold Francisco, who started to work with the company only in November 1997.
Moreover, well-settled is the rule that the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal negates the fact that an employee abandoned his work for it is illogical for one to abandon his employment and then thereafter file a complaint for illegal dismissal. The petitioners in immediately filing the complaints for illegal dismissal clearly indicated that they have not given up their work.
Furthermore, it must be stressed that abandonment of work does not per se severe the employer-employee relationship. It is merely a form of neglect of duty, which is in turn a just cause for termination of employment. The operative act that will ultimately put an end to this relationship is the dismissal of the employee after complying with the procedure prescribed by law. If the employer does not follow this procedure, there is illegal dismissal (De Paul/King Philip Customs Tailor vs. NLRC, 304 SCRA 448, 458-459). If indeed they abandoned their work, then the private respondents should have served the notices dated July 28, 1998 (Annexes `C', `D', `E', and `F' to the Position Paper of the Respondents, pp. 71-74) to the last known addresses of the petitioners in accordance with the rules.x x x x x x
WHEREFORE, the decision of the public respondent is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the labor arbiter is REINSTATED with the following modifications:SO ORDERED."
- The petitioners are entitled to the payment of full backwages; 13th month pay and service incentive leave subject to statutory limitations; and
- Petitioner Wilfredo Toribio's monetary claim should be corrected.
"By vigorously pursuing the litigation of his action against petitioner, private respondent clearly manifested that he has no intention of relinquishing his employment, which act is wholly incompatible to petitioner's assertion that he voluntarily resigned."Neither do we find any indication that respondents have shown by some overt acts their intention to sever their employment in petitioner company.
"x x x. Absence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee simply does not want to work anymore. And the burden of proof to show that there was unjustified refusal to go back to work rests on the employer.In this case, respondents did not report back for work on July 27, 1998 because they were suspended by petitioners for one week effective July 22 to 28, 1998. Verily, their absence cannot be considered abandonment of work, a just cause for termination of employment.x x x
Abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot lightly be presumed from certain equivocal acts. To constitute abandonment, there must be clear proof of deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the employer-employee relationship. Clearly, the operative act is still the employee's ultimate act of putting an end to his employment.
Settled is the rule that mere absence or failure to report for work is not tantamount to abandonment of work. x x x."
Names of Employees | Dates Hired | Daily Wage Rates (as of May 23, 1998) | |||
(1) | Ernesto Etrata | March 15, 1992 | P 142.00 | ||
(2) | Nida Toribio | June 19, 1992 | P 142.00 | ||
(3) | Sorraya Amping | August 1, 1992 | P 142.00 | ||
(4) | Yolanda Lorenzo | September 14, 1992 | P 142.00 | ||
(5) | Vivian Mendoza | August 3, 1992 | P 142.00 | ||
(6) | Merylene delos Reyes | September 20, 1992 | P 142.00 | ||
(7) | Manuel Francisco | January 4, 1994 | P 112.00 | ||
(8) | Wilfredo Toribio | June 24, 1994 | P 162.00 | ||
(9) | Yasher Taning | August 6, 1992 | P 142.00 | ||
(10) | Arnold Francisco | November 8, 1997 | P 96.00 |